Cor Ad Cor Loquitor: a Report Into Support and Collaboration Between Maintained English Catholic Schools and the Role of The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cor ad cor loquitor: A report into support and collaboration between maintained English Catholic schools and the role of the Catholic Higher Education Institution: distinctiveness, impact and challenge Simon Uttley April 2019 Contents Acknowledgments 1. Twelve Findings 4 2. Landscape for collaboration: financial necessity and mission integrity 6 3. Scope of research 17 4. Notes on questioning 17 5. Emerging perspectives in the sector 18 6. Empirical Findings 28 7. Recommendations for St Mary’s 44 8. Concluding Remarks 50 9. References 53 2 Acknowledgments This report, including a small-sample study, required the generosity – both in time and candour- of a range of leaders of Catholic, maintained schools, during 2018. In being prepared to share their experiences of collaboration, set against a period of significant challenge which impacted them both professionally and, in terms of pressure, often personally, they allowed this research to take place. I would like to thank Ruth Kelly, Pro Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation at St Mary’s University, for her encouragement and scrutiny. Within my own ‘work’ Diocese of Portsmouth, I would like to thank Catherine Hobbs, Director for Education, and Edmund Adamus, Professional Adviser to the Episcopal Vicar for Education, for their encouragement. Finally, thanks to Catherine Johnson for her comments. Any mistakes and opinions are entirely my own and do not reflect policy or positions of any other person or institution. About the author In addition to his role as Headteacher of a Catholic Secondary school, Professor Simon Uttley is Visiting Professor, Research and Innovation, at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. He is Course Leader for Catholic Education and the Common Good at the University of Notre Dame, London Global Gateway and Visiting Professor in the Philosophy of Education, Akademia Ignatianum, Krakow, Poland. 3 Twelve Findings School-to-school partnerships 1. The vast majority of maintained primary and secondary schools in England need to put significant downward pressure on spending in what is a hugely challenging financial climate. Catholic schools are, equally, looking to save money but without undermining mission integrity, understood as Catholic distinctiveness, curriculum breadth and additional support. 2. Catholic schools are positive about school-to-school collaboration, can point to real impact and regard it as intrinsic to their identity. In terms of school management and improvement processes, they place a high regard on trusted relationships with credible practitioners who have direct experience of school life. Equally, they are keenly interested in research-based solutions and enthusiastic to participate in such research, and with academics in the field, where it adds to students’ experience and staff engagement. 3. School leaders believe collaboration is impossible – even illogical - if ‘relationships’ are imposed coercively [except in the case of grave weaknesses], however well intentioned. Collaboration should be fostered and enabled. Further recognising and celebrating collaboration, such as via both Ofsted and Sec. 48 inspections, is one way of embedding this culture, though without making it a requirement such that it is a ‘stick to beat schools with’. School leaders understand and affirm Dioceses, too, may have a role in properly celebrating and fostering this approach. 4. School-to-school collaboration is directly impactful in raising standards in many, but not all, cases. It is always strongly impactful in developing the staff – and students – who are party to a healthy collaboration. Relationships with other schools -and with HEIs, where they currently exist – are most impactful when they are given time to evolve, as against ad hoc events created [purely] through necessity or a need to react. Of the collaborations examined, the medium term [2.5/3 years] models appear most efficacious. This reflects the value placed on consistency and continuity by Catholic school leaders as against ‘quick fixes’. 5. In considering links with the Higher Education sector [HEIs], while links with a specifically Catholic University is favoured by some school leaders, factors such as geography, cost and building up relationships of trust over time take priority. 4 6. University academics working in, and with schools, especially in more technical and demanding subjects [such as Stem] are welcomed by school leaders. Equally important, especially for more vulnerable children, are role models. HEI students, able to commit to support schools as role models, whether as part of an extended ‘service’ commitment or purely ad hoc, are welcomed as part of the ‘volunteer’ cadre by many school leaders. Specific to St Mary’s University 7. There is a clear understanding of St Mary’s commitment to initial teacher education by all respondents, together with a recognition of its quality. Some school leaders were aware of its recent, and repeated, ‘Outstanding’ judgement by Ofsted. 8. Many school leaders were aware of continuing professional development offered by St Mary’s, particularly the MA in Catholic School Leadership. Few school leaders were aware of the full offer available and also some were not aware of e.g. the extent to which online delivery is now available. 9. Cost, in terms of upfront fees, time out of school and transport costs are important to most school leaders, especially where they have a local HEI with which there exists a longstanding relationship, often coupled with local discounts. Therefore, there needs to be additional ‘value added’ [by St Mary’s] when geography is a factor. 10. HEI-based events supporting Pupil Premium and more vulnerable children would be attractive; again, local HEIs often offer this so there would be a need for St Mary’s to demonstrate distinctiveness. Mentoring and role models from St Mary’s would be welcomed in many schools as part of a US-style ‘service’ outreach by St Mary’s. 11. There is scope for a wraparound, [typically]three-year partnership arrangement [tentatively termed ‘St Mary’s Research School Designation’] with St Mary’s and designated schools, as discussed below in ‘Recommendations’. This would increase St Mary’s exposure, add value for schools involved in supporting other schools [which are not necessarily Teaching Schools] and would lead to revenue generation. 12. St Mary’s should continue to work with Diocesan Directors of schools [and similar] to better understand the sector needs. One model would be for St Mary’s to sponsor/facilitate working groups from Diocesan leaders [and designated school leaders] to generate fresh thinking around collaboration and to showcase this is a Conference format. 5 2. Landscape for collaboration: financial necessity and mission Integrity 2.1 Financial and operational expediency Catholic Primary and Secondary schools in England and Wales are engaged in the most significant changes to the structure of the sector for over a generation, whether as participants or interested onlookers. Academisation, increased competition from ‘enterprising’ [non-Catholic] multi-academy trusts [MATs], year- on-year legislative changes, the fragmented implementation of the National Funding Formula, changes to school inspections, the declining role and capacity of Local Authorities [LAs] together with a real-terms decrease in per-pupil school funding, all represent a clear challenge to operational efficacy and mission integrity. To this threat comes not only the possibility but, increasingly, the requirement for school-to-school collaboration and support. Support can take a number of forms and, within the Hierarchy of England and Wales, the 22 sovereign Dioceses are engaging in a number of approaches including: [a] constituting large multi-academy trusts [MATs] within Dioceses b] constituting smaller MATs allowed to grow organically, based, for example, on geographical proximity [c] facilitating, or encouraging so-called ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ Federations’ whereby schools make a commitment to work with each other [c] formalised Diocesan and school-to-school support, such as in the case of ‘under-performance’ and [d] structured informal or ad hoc support. At the same time, the push to Academisation has been somewhat tempered by a perceived change in direction from Government. In May 2018, Education, Secretary Damian Hinds announced a review of accountability measures, stating the Government ‘will not be forcibly turning schools into academies’ unless ‘Ofsted has judged them to be ‘inadequate’.1 The Official Opposition also indicates that they would ‘oppose any attempt to force schools to become academies.'2 1 Schoolsweek 4th May 2018 https://schoolsweek.co.uk/hinds-announces-sweeping-school-accountability-changes/ viewed 26.5.18 2 Labour Manifesto: Towards a national Education Service [2019] https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/education/ Viewed 2.3.19 6 Research suggests a mixed picture in terms of the efficacy of the Academies programme. The Sutton Trust identified that: ‘the evidence is not easy to interpret. The average attainment of pupils in Academies has risen but in certain cases their intakes have changed. There are continuing concerns about achievement levels in a number of Academies. The impact of Academies on the attainment of their family of schools and on the wider community has been even more difficult to gauge. While this part of the objective was perhaps too ambitious, little action seems to have been taken to address the issue’. 3 Education spending remains the second highest nationally after health, accounting for 4.3% of national income. The level of UK education spending has risen significantly in real terms over time, growing particularly fast from the late 1990s through to the late 2000s. However, total school spending per pupil has fallen by 8% in real terms between 2009–10 and 2017–18. This was mainly driven by a 55% cut to local authority spending on services. Funding per pupil provided to individual primary and secondary schools has been better protected and remains over 60% higher than in 2000–01, though it is about 4% below its peak in 2015.4 Funding per student aged 16–18 has seen the biggest pressure of all stages of education for young people in recent years.